Posted
by
samzenpuson Wednesday March 16, 2011 @05:34PM
from the l33t-amendment dept.

CWmike writes "The Obama Administration is backing a new data privacy bill of rights aimed at protecting consumers against indiscriminate online tracking and data collection by advertisers. In recent times, high-profile examples of a need for improving privacy laws include Facebook's personal data collection practices and Google's problems over its Street View Wi-Fi snooping issue. In testimony prepared for the Senate Committee on Commerce Science and Transportation, the Commerce Department's assistant secretary, Lawrence Strickling, said that the White House wants Congress to enact legislation offering 'baseline consumer data privacy protections.' Strickling said the administration's call for new online privacy protections stems from recommendations made by the Commerce Department in a paper released in December. The administration's support for privacy protections is very significant, said Joel Reidenberg, a professor at Fordham Law School who specializes in privacy issues. 'This is the first time since 1974 that the U.S. government has supported mandatory general privacy rules,' Reidenberg said."

... and no principles that consistently direct their decision-making since that would require a spine and would likely interfere with retaining power.

You really want to make excuses for that?

You said it yourself; politicians in the upper levels of government must set aside principles to stay in office. If you want to blame someone, blame the voters who force them to behave that way. We get the government we deserve.

I would suggest we blame the campaign finance laws that require them to behave that way.

I fail to see the connection between campaign finance laws and politicians pandering to whatever the voters currently want. Election campaigns could magically be free and they would still behave in this manner. They want votes, and consistency (currently) does not win you elections.

I fail to see the connection between campaign finance laws and politicians pandering to whatever the voters currently want.

Your incorrect assumption is that there are any politicians "pandering to whatever the voters currently want". That hasn't been the case in quite a while. As far as I can tell, there are a bunch of governors for example doing things that are very unpopular with the voters. Look at the polls in Ohio, Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan for example.

If their actions are truly "very unpopular" with the voters then those governors won't be there after the next election. If they are still around then their actions obviously weren't as unpopular as they are being portrayed.

Maybe the voters are apathetic because they know that the government has no incentive to behave once they're elected.

Even if the president gets voted out in an overwhelming landslide next term he still has 4 years to show his true colors, and until those years are over, only his fellow corporate trough feeders can oust him.

I disagree. Clearly, the principle of "keep the big donors happy and give lip-service to voters" is the guiding principle for every politician except a very few. Bernie Sanders comes to mind, but he's a Socialist!1! so that doesn't count because clearly he's trying to undermine God and the Founding Fathers by trying to look out for his constituents.

It's more to do with political game play. Right now the administration can propose all kinds of left aligned legislation knowing full well the Republicans in the lower house well knock it back if it has any possible conceivable impact upon corporate profits as reported to them by legions of lobbyists.

So a year and a half odd, off free political campaigning to make the Republicans look anti-people, a government of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation. Of course the administration mi

Well, let's see: There's absolutely no way the privacy legislation will make it through the current Congress. Plus, Obama only came up with this after the Democrats had already lost control of Congress. And, there's a very good chance that the copyright stuff will make it through Congress.

So, I think it's fairly safe to say that he does intend to implement the copyright stuff, and that he has no intention of allowing the privacy legislation to succeed.

Even with all the "populist" tea party members in control of Congress? Don't you think they're going to look out for us Americans? Surely they believe in privacy.

They believe in privacy from the government. Any sort of privacy legislation is going to be seen as a "government interfering in private affairs." After all, the right solution to privacy concerns if the free market. If you don't like web sites spying on you, you can always browse a different Internet.

If exploiting your personal information is so valuable that no company in its right mind would dare pass up the chance, then the market does not work for you if you want to keep your privacy instead of whore it out.

How about not having to be seen naked in order to be able to fly? Or that there should be a court order before my electronic communications can be intercepted by law enforcement / intelligence agencies?

I was thinking the same thing. It's not about privacy. Can I smoke what I want in my own home? Nope. Can I grow what I want in my back yard? Nope. Can I get a state-sponsored marriage with whomever I want? Nope. There are piles of things that don't affect anyone outside the room they happen in that are illegal. Where's the privacy for those? Where is my right to keep the contents of my car private from the government officials who pull me over? Where did my privacy go, and why bother to call this a "privacy" related bill when it's about data retention and correlation of public information more than anything privacy related?

Instead, this bill should be the "no sharing" bill where it is made illegal to share information with 3rd parties without express permission and it's illegal to require that permission to offer a service. That's an easy fix, but the real solution will be much much worse for us. And it won't address our real privacy at all.

Next you're going to tell me that I can't drink what I want when I drive.

I don't see why not. The only issue is that we don't have performance-based penalties. You can't drink whatever you want while driving, but you can eat while reading a map and sleeping. I'd much rather have an objective and effective measure of driving ability and impairment to enforce minimum safety standards. Instead, we get lunacy where talking on a phone is shown to be an impairment. However, rather than addressing the actual safety issue, we get bans from using it in your hand, but not with a hand

They have the right to search the driver's area for weapons (including under the driver's seat). They can also make you sit outside your car on an uncomfortably hot or cold day while they wait for the dogs to show up while they sit in their own car with climate control. Where you can just give in and let them look to be on your way.

Oh, and if you say no and they have Reasonable Suspicion, but not Probable Cause, they can hold you on RS to determine if they can generate PC. That includes getting the dogs

Obama hasn't ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell. In fact, assuming I understand the law that was passed, it won't be over until Congress gives their final approval based on "proof that it will not adversely effect combat readiness" or something along those lines.

Gee, I wonder what the chances are that the current Congress will do that?

I wonder how far this will go - would it stop Facebook from having some sort of User License Agreement whereby users can only get on Facebook if they allow all their info to be sold on?

I wonder how they will square this with the recent DoE threats to sue public school teachers/administrators that fail to monitor student's non-school-related Facebook pages and other online communications for any hints of non-specific "harassment or bullying" and punish and/or suspend "offenders"?

I remember a time when any teachers or school administrators who "monitored" a student outside of school in such an intrusive way would get a starring role in a criminal investigation.

Make damn sure that the only parts of privacy that we can sign away are reasonable, and require an honest request with a clear indication as to what we're agreeing to up front when we make that decision. As it stands you can agree to let them share or not, but you're typically not told who the 3rd parties are and as a result you don't really know what you're agreeing to if you say yes.

Probably the have a warning in the EULA that if you sign in, you agree to the sharing of data.

The distintion is that, AFAIK, they do not even have to warn you before sharing the data.

Also, they probably will have to secure that data, know to which they sell it and what they want to do with it, and also ask the third party to equally ensure the data (maybe even forbidding the third party to reselling the data to another party).

Can we PLEASE stop talking about Google as if they did something wrong? I don't exactly blame my neighbors for hearing me when I stand on the top of my house screaming my personal information in all directions.

What Google did amounts to wiretapping. Period. They eavesdropped and recorded "conversations" carried out over FCC regulated airwaves. There is no difference between what they did and placing a tap on your phone line and recording bits of your conversation.

None. I'm not aware of any jurisdiction, at least in the US, that is that literal about it. Typically if you record a conversation that's a wiretap, if you do it with a tape recorder or you do it over the phone it's equally wiretapping. The problem is that since the Google van wasn't a party to those transmissions no state allows that without an appropriate court order. Around here we're a one party consent state, but since the one party has to actually be involved with the conversation, they wouldn't have

Are you trying to suggest that FM Radio would be covered by current wiretapping law? I mean, it's a "conversation" carried out over FCC regulated airwaves, right? No, clearly wired telephones, cellular telephones, Wifi communications, and radio are all significantly different, and are treated such by law.

(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any personâ"(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;

So, have you encrypted your router? No? Then your electronic communication system is configured so that your electronic communications are readily accessible to the general public. Therefore, you get no protection under federal wiretap law. QED

First off, I'm from Hungary, so I don't need you flinging the "government shills" crap towards me, the US government can go rot in Hades for all I care.

I don't know much about US wiretapping laws either, not being even a paralegal, but consider this: it's called wiretapping for a reason. Wired conversations go between two discrete parties, so to eavesdrop, you need to break in at one point onto private property. Wi-Fi is a point-to-multipoint protocol, it's the equivalent of standing on your rooftop and screaming out your info for the world to hear, like grandparent said. I can walk by your house, and get it without breaking any laws, unless you suddenly want to control what I'm allowed to hear. If I went ahead, and installed a secret microphone to listen in on what you whisper to your friend in your living room, not that is wiretapping!

Learn to encrypt the network, otherwise people will just surf on it, "since it's there". You know, like why Hillary climbed Mount Everest.

Not to shit on your point too much (civilians intercepting your -encrypted- cellphone chat still tickles 'wiretapping' laws in most states), but since when does the protocol have anything to do with whether or not your communications can be heard by the general public? If you stand on your rooftop and yell "Hey Bob! Blah blah blah", do people not named Bob hear nothing?

Can we PLEASE stop talking about Google as if they did something wrong? I don't exactly blame my neighbors for hearing me when I stand on the top of my house screaming my personal information in all directions.

I don't blame the people at the next table when they overhear my conversation either. But they aren't deliberately listening in, recording it, transcribing it, and publishing it on the web.

And they aren't following me from restaurant to restaurant recording my conversations at each, and adding them to the web, all linked together.

They aren't writing down what I'm wearing at each meal, and then analyzing it to determine colour preferences, brand preferences, income level, social standing, peer group, etc. And then selling this information...

Likewise you don't really care that your neighbors can see and hear you outside. But you'd probably object if your neighbor started keeping "files" on you, recording your comings and goings, writing down what you are wearing, producing transcripts of everything they see and hear...while watching your home with binoculars and cameras... and then publishing and selling it all on the web.

Can we PLEASE stop talking about Google as if they did something wrong? I don't exactly blame my neighbors for hearing me when I stand on the top of my house screaming my personal information in all directions.

I don't blame the people at the next table when they overhear my conversation either. But they aren't deliberately listening in, recording it, transcribing it, and publishing it on the web.

And they aren't following me from restaurant to restaurant recording my conversations at each, and adding them to the web, all linked together.

They aren't writing down what I'm wearing at each meal, and then analyzing it to determine colour preferences, brand preferences, income level, social standing, peer group, etc. And then selling this information...

Likewise you don't really care that your neighbors can see and hear you outside. But you'd probably object if your neighbor started keeping "files" on you, recording your comings and goings, writing down what you are wearing, producing transcripts of everything they see and hear...while watching your home with binoculars and cameras... and then publishing and selling it all on the web.

I admire your grasp of the facts and your (quite accurate) assessment of the situation.

The problem is bigger than a matter of information. This is a religious cause for the Google apologists, unfortunately. They decide ahead of time that what Google did is acceptable. They then reject any information that would contradict this conclusion.

You are quite right that GP would almost certainly object to a neighbor who collects this level of information about him. He'd find that disturbing, violating, and down

You are quite right that GP would almost certainly object to a neighbor who collects this level of information about him. He'd find that disturbing, violating, and downright creepy, the kind of behavior in which a stalker would engage. But he thinks it's perfectly acceptable when Google collects that much information. And doesn't see the contradiction.

Well, one of the reasons I'm okay with Google collecting all that info about my online activity is that unlike my creepy stalker neighbor, Google won't be coming at me with sharp implements any time soon.

The other is that I really don't see how knowing what I look at one the web can harm me. I mean, it's irrelevant to my career that I read and post on Slashdot, that I read Hackaday, along with diplomacia.hu (university major's homepage), and the EU news site, or that I like to go on wiki walks to expand my

When has Google followed anyone anywhere? Google drove down the street recording everything it could hear. This is perfectly legal for an individual to do, and it should be equally legal for a corporation to do.

If we're still talking about the wifi interception, it is absolutely not an accurate assessment to compare it to stalking/harassment.

Google is like the socially retarded neighbor who hires a private investigator to fully investigate you, to find out what the best housewarming gift would be. You might be a slight bit conflicted as to how to feel, given the circumstances. It's definitely creepy, but one could conceivably argue that it's done to give you a better experience. I'm not sure I buy that, but I'm trying to be open-minded.

This is an important fight rather for the people who have decided ahead of time that no matter WHAT the actual story or facts of the situation are, Slashdot will make as inflammatory a summary as possible if corporations or government are involved, and then 80% of posts will be about how said subject wants to murder babies.

So forgive me if my initial reflex on reading a summary such as "Google to break into your house and steal your file cabinets" is to think "gee, I wonder just how different the reality of

None of which is relevant to what the OP is talking about, which is the data received from insecure Wi-Fi APs, not Google's cookies online. They weren't deliberately listening in, as much as they were listening to everything. You can argue they recorded it, but that's because computer's cannot listen without recording it in some fashion.

They definitely didn't follow people around, they didn't upload them to the web, they didn't analyze the data, and they didn't sell it. They deleted it. Hell, they would have preferred deleting it, instead of handing it over to the government, when they found the data they had and told people about it off their own bat.

If my neighbors gave me have the shit Google does for free, they could write down all they want.

The government on the other hand, takes 30% of my pay, charges be an extra 6% on everything I buy, is recording FAR FAR more personal data about me than Google could ever dream, and most importantly has a long and storied history of arresting, imprisoning, torture and lets not forget executing people it deems criminals or enemy combatants.

The result of Google collecting data on me? Free email and long distance calls with the downside of targeted adds.The result of the Government collecting data on me? Nothing good, but the possibility of discrimination, arrest, imprisonment and death.

If I need a "bill of rights" to protect me from something, lets start with the thing that could possibly KILL me before we worry about target advertising.

I don't think they should have the right to record you by default, but if you want them do... that's entirely up to you.

This should be one of the first things they teach people before they get on the web. Dont like what a website operator (google) is doing? STOP VISITING THEIR SITE. The internet isnt a democracy; each site is its own monarchy, and if you dont like it you can leave.

So, how much is it worth for them to not let your home burn down, investigate and prosecute anybody that might rob you? Or how about what is it worth to have streets for the ambulances to travel on in case you actually need emergency assistance?

I hear a lot of whining from the anti-tax people about how the government is taking my money and giving nothing in return, but would you really be that better off without the taxes and the things that taxes provide? Money, despite popular belief, is just money. Preci

So first they back ideas to introduce total internet data retention, surveillance, tracking and killswitch control in order to fight pirates. Then they back ideas about better privacy? What sort of morons make decisions in the white house?

Sneaky ones. The proposed new "Privacy Act" will dictate how private industry will keep information gathered on individuals. Just like the Data Privacy Act of 1974 does for the government. I do not believe this prevents the government from requiring ISPs from keeping data logs on its users, since they can create exceptions for ISPs by classifying them as similar to traditional common carrier status and not commerce. Better yet, they can make all the exc

Wait a minute.. isn't this the same guy who, when he was a Senator, voted for the bill to give AT&T retroactive immunity to their illegal wiretaps?

I guess it just goes to show, in 2008 Obama was just another politician, as corrupt and ineffective as anyone else, but now in 2011 he's become an idealist, finally offering the hope and change that just three years ago, nobody could credibly believe in.

The number one violator of privacy is the federal government. On the internet, on the phone, with out passports, with TSA, even on our drivers licenses they're just non stop. How about not having to tell the IRS my bank account, my income, or every transaction over 10000, since when was anything like that any of their freaking business.

Since they gained the authority to tax. If you don't like it you're free to move to another country, but somebody has to pay for the things the government supplies. And since conservatives know basically nothing about balancing the budget the amount of taxes is much higher than it otherwise would be. But there are other countries with lower taxes, I just doubt very much that you'd want to live in those sorts of places.

So if the federal government is now in favor of us having the right to control our privacy, I guess this means they'll stop threatening to throw us into jail when we don't tell them our business, huh?;-)

OK, so today the White House announced its support for two new laws. One protects citizens from predatory trade practices, the other extends the fiat monopoly powers of a corporate lobbying group. Seems like a fine opportunity for a free market and representative democracy shootout.

1. Which one will get gutted before passage?2. Which one will be broadened before passage?3. Which one will pass first?4. Which one will be decried by the opposition party as unconscionable government interference in the free mar

like when they named the act that takes away your right to not be spied on and illegally searched the patriot act. I would be interested in what obama is really up to cause he has abandoned helping regular people.

The Obama administration's reported push for stronger federal oversight over online privacy is likely to be welcomed by privacy advocates increasingly concerned about the data-collection and data-sharing practices of big Internet companies and marketing companies.

There you go, this is what it's all about, always has been, and always will be.

His highest priority as a legislator and now as the commander in chief is to protect the right to abortion. Roe v. Wade doesn't establish an absolute right to abortion, it determined that a woman's right to privacy allows her to get an abortion. If the right to privacy disappears, so does Obama's sacrament.

And then I read it and realized he's talking about tracking me on the internet (trendy!) and not about actually preventing my personal, kind of a bigger deal, Rights, from being trampled on - the TSA and Guantanamo and security theater and 9/11 as an excuse to let law enforcement do whatever it feels like in the name of security and wiretapping and the lack of judicial review.

Is this in any way to the "please-don't-track-me" header or optout-cookie proposals being volleyed around by gov/browser folks and the IAB, respectively? Have they worked out how they actually plan to enforce this business and keep everybody honest?

So.. do you remember when you were a kid, on Halloween, somebody would put out a big bucket of candy and a "please take only one" sign? Do you remember how well that worked? Well, now those kids are all grown up and working at internet advertising companies:-) A

And what if the TOS is buried in a filing cabinet in the basement behind the door of an unused lavatory with "beware of the leopard" on it? I'd agree with you if the TOS were required to use plain language but instead they are nearly always written in such legalese bullshit you'd need to hire a contract lawyer just to translate the stupid thing.

Now if you want to pass a law that the TOS only counts if it falls under the "reasonable person" rule, that is that a reasonable person with an average HS educati

I've noticed that, contracts are presumed to have been agreed to upon informed consent. But, I don't personally have the money to have an attorney on retainer to have them research each EULA, ToS or other contract I might need to agree to. It's gotten to the point where it's completely unrealistic for anybody that isn't an attorney to agree to these things because they regularly include language in it that would require access to a law library to have even a cursory understanding of the language.

To be honest, it would probably bother me a lot more if the court that's responsible for making such determinations had some clue as to what the constitution is and what it says. Some of the rulings over the last decade in particular have been pretty mind blowingly stupid.

I disagree STRONGLY. Part of what the government has started to do to get around federal laws against data aggregation is to license access databases run by private entities. It's effectively the same thing, but legally not.

The worst thing that a private company can do to you? Surrender ALL of your records, communications, and travel history to the federal government the instant you are merely accused of a crime.

the government wants 'in' when they say its important. you make a change in your network and don't tell them or give them access? that's a jailin'.

this exists in some contexts; but I see the trend where home users will have to have registered access info with 'the government'.

this is the next world war; the war from governments to their own people; all countries have an 'interest' in spying on their own people. more of an ideological war and not a weapon (such as guns) war. but a push-back from the peop

I'm no lawyer or politician, but could this perhaps be legislation made in response to the recent Wikileaks fiasco?

That's right where my mind went, too. It sounds like a sugar coating for a clamp down on whistleblowers. I guess if congress passes it we're right, because I can't imagine the Rs getting on board with something like this otherwise.